General waiver provision could not be applied to override more specific provision

Federal appeal | Tax | Income tax | Administration and enforcement

Waiver of requirement to file notice of objection. Minister of National Revenue issued notice of reassessment of taxpayer’s 2000 income tax year in 2008, but taxpayer claimed it only became aware of it in April 2010. Taxpayer filed notice of objection in June 2010, which was rejected as invalid for being late. Taxpayer requested that Minister, under s. 220(2.1) of Income Tax Act, waive requirement to file notice of objection, which was denied on ground that s. 220(2.1) of Act did not apply to notices of objection. Federal Court judge granted taxpayer’s application for judicial review of Minister’s decision and awarded costs to taxpayer. Minister appealed. Appeals allowed. Judgments were set aside, taxpayer’s application for judicial review was dismissed, and Minister was awarded costs of appeal and lower level. Judge erred by failing to read s. 220(2.1) of Act harmoniously with scheme and object of Act and intention of Parliament. Judge failed to give due consideration to purpose of other provisions, particularly s. 166.1(7) of Act. Legislation intentionally provided specific and strict time limits for objecting and extending time to object and did not provide for considerations of fairness. Use of s. 220(2.1) of Act to engage objection process without having to comply with statutory conditions would give Minister power that Minister had been denied in s. 166.1(7) of Act. General waiver provision could not be applied to override more specific provision. Specific limitation periods provided for in objections regime must be applied in this case. Section 220(2.1) of Act did not apply to notices of objection. Minister’s decision was reasonable and correct.

Canada (National Revenue) v. ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp. (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 7141, 2017 CarswellNat 9680, 2017 FCA 243, 2017 CAF 243, Johanne Gauthier J.A., Yves de Montigny J.A., and Judith Woods J.A. (F.C.A.); reversed (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 114, 2016 CarswellNat 12077, 2016 FC 98, 2016 CF 98, Keith M. Boswell J. (F.C.).

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Ontario should switch to no-cost class actions, law commission says

AG names nominating authority for construction disputes

Fasken’s Sarah Graves joins Kidney Cancer Canada board

Legal clinic workers join Ontario professionals’ union

Statement of Principles will be debated again September, LSO says

Citing blog post, judge says lawyer withheld key case law

Most Read Articles

Lawyer's negligence case sheds light on rules for expert witnesses

Citing blog post, judge says lawyer withheld key case law

Small claims court judges have little sway on anti-SLAPP cases

Orlando Da Silva named chief administrator of ATSSC